Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

I had a question re hiring at Fitzpatrick Cella. It seems like they preselected people with grades ranging from top 10% to people with below median grades from an off-campus interview program (Tulane/Vanderbilt/Wustl participated) Does fitzpatrick give way more emphasis on a technical background or do they just interview as many as they can and a very low interview --> callback ratio. From the firm bios it doesn't look like they are top schools heavy but below median at these 3 schools seems kind of low for a top IP boutique in NYC.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

This is for lit, correct?

Fitzpatrick Cella does prosecution.

Ah.

In any event, it's better to split up lists like this into pros and lit subgroups.

And I'm not sure K&E is better, and definitely not "<----Significant Gap---->" better, than lots of other places, in IP lit and IP as a whole.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

I'd say that, for IP, the only firms worth taking above K&E are places like Irell, and IP boutiques, but even then that's a stretch. Boutiques don't get the same high profile cases and large scope that K&E does, simply because K&E is a national firm. Also, I think K&E is a better name to have on the resume than most IP boutiques.

IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Is this list adjusted for the size of the firm/IP division? Because if not, it could be very misleading.

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Is this list adjusted for the size of the firm/IP division? Because if not, it could be very misleading.

No, the list is not adjusted for firm size. Why in the world would you do that? The OP is looking for the biggest/best/most well-known IP firms, and the list is a good way to see which firms do a lot of patent litigation. A 200 lawyer firm that does 25 patent cases a year is "better" for patent litigation than a 20 lawyer firm that does 3 patent cases a year. Adjusting for firm size would be silly in this context.

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Is this list adjusted for the size of the firm/IP division? Because if not, it could be very misleading.

No, the list is not adjusted for firm size. Why in the world would you do that? The OP is looking for the biggest/best/most well-known IP firms, and the list is a good way to see which firms do a lot of patent litigation. A 200 lawyer firm that does 25 patent cases a year is "better" for patent litigation than a 20 lawyer firm that does 3 patent cases a year. Adjusting for firm size would be silly in this context.

No it wouldn't be silly. If firm A is doing 30 cases a year, while firm B is doing 25 cases a year, you would think that firm A is doing better. But if firm A is a 400 lawyer shop while firm B is a 150 lawyer shop, I would say that makes a pretty huge difference.

The OP asked for "the biggest/ best/ most well-known biglaw IP firms," not just the biggest. I think adjusting for firm size is warranted.

dood wrote:also consider this: weil tries ~30% of their patent cases, while most firms only try about 10% of patent lit cases, according to the weil partner i interviewed with today, which falls in line with what chambers says "weil doesnt fuck around, when opposing counsel is weil, u better know they are fully to prepared to try the case to the end."

so what is it u really want to do BROSKI? u want to become a true litigator? u should consider non-IP litigation too - IP cases are notorious for dragging on years before ever coming to trial.

alot of stuff for u to think about. not just who is the biggest, baddest IP lit firm.

my advice: go with the firm where u think u would fit in the best, ur gonna make friends faster, be able to get more substantive work from partners, have good mentors, etc <- all things that will help u get in to court, make partner, etc.

They're also prepared to forget to file their JMOLs and potentially cost their client $200MM.

twistedwrister wrote:IP Law and Business puts out a list of the firms that handle the most patent cases each year:

--LinkRemoved--

This tells you which firms are actually getting the work. The usual suspects (K&E, Fish) top the list, but some firms might surprise you. For example, not too many people associate Covington, Akin Gump, Sidley, and DLA Piper with patent litigation, but they do quite a bit.

Note that this list only covers district court litigation, not Fed. Circuit/appeals or ITC work. I don't think the 2010 list is out yet.

Hope this helps.

Is this list adjusted for the size of the firm/IP division? Because if not, it could be very misleading.

No, the list is not adjusted for firm size. Why in the world would you do that? The OP is looking for the biggest/best/most well-known IP firms, and the list is a good way to see which firms do a lot of patent litigation. A 200 lawyer firm that does 25 patent cases a year is "better" for patent litigation than a 20 lawyer firm that does 3 patent cases a year. Adjusting for firm size would be silly in this context.

I never said that the list was a ranking of the "best" IP firms. The list shows the firms that handled the most patent cases in 2009, which is valuable information for those looking at IP firms. Of course you should also look at Chambers -- it's a great resource for practice group rankings which has already been mentioned in this thread several times. Not so sure about Vault's practice group rankings. I'd rather rely on hard data (i.e., what firms are getting the work) than a survey of associates who know little (if any) more than the average law student.

Irell is a special case. I agree that it's a top patent litigation firm, but it's basically Morgan Chu and everyone else. He can afford to be picky about which cases to take, so Irell doesn't do as high a volume as other firms. Adjusting for size wouldn't really "help" Irell since Irell has a big IP litigation group (~70 attorneys). Adjusting for the size/quality of each case would help, but that's not easy to do.

twistedwrister wrote:I never said that the list was a ranking of the "best" IP firms. The list shows the firms that handled the most patent cases in 2009, which is valuable information for those looking at IP firms. Of course you should also look at Chambers -- it's a great resource for practice group rankings which has already been mentioned in this thread several times. Not so sure about Vault's practice group rankings. I'd rather rely on hard data (i.e., what firms are getting the work) than a survey of associates who know little (if any) more than the average law student.

Irell is a special case. I agree that it's a top patent litigation firm, but it's basically Morgan Chu and everyone else. He can afford to be picky about which cases to take, so Irell doesn't do as high a volume as other firms. Adjusting for size wouldn't really "help" Irell since Irell has a big IP litigation group (~70 attorneys). Adjusting for the size/quality of each case would help, but that's not easy to do.

Correct, correct, correct.

Thanks for that. Why don't you like Weil as an IP lit firm? Did you have a run in with Matt Powers? (kidding, of course).